Alexander v University of Sydney and anor [2008] NSWADT 214

Alexander v University of Sydney and anor [2008] NSWADT 214

The Tribunal found on the evidence that Mr Britt's report was obtained and provided in confidence, that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the future supply of similar information to the University, and that disclosure would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest. Thus, the report is exempt under clause 13(b) of Schedule 1 to the FOI Act, and there were not strong enough grounds to justify exercising the override discretion to grant access.

Parties
Applicant: Harriet Gretchen Alexander; First Respondent: University of Sydney; Second Respondent: Kim Walker
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Freedom of Information Review / Review of Agency Decision in Tribunal
Outcome
application dismissed; decision affirmed
Legal Topics
Access to Documents, Confidential Information, Legal Professional Privilege, Internal Working Documents, Personal Affairs, Operation of Agencies
Administrative Law Information Law Access to Documents Confidential Information Legal Professional Privilege Internal Working Documents Personal Affairs Operation of Agencies

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harriet Gretchen Alexander

Applicant

University of Sydney

First Respondent

Kim Walker

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Freedom of Information Review / Review of Agency Decision in Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Britt's report is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 1989 (NSW)
  2. 2 Applicability of exemptions for confidential material, internal working documents, legal professional privilege, personal/professional affairs, and information concerning agency operations
  3. 3 Whether disclosure would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found on the evidence that Mr Britt's report was obtained and provided in confidence, that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the future supply of similar information to the University, and that disclosure would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest. Thus, the report is exempt under clause 13(b) of Schedule 1 to the FOI Act, and there were not strong enough grounds to justify exercising the override discretion to grant access.

Court Disposition

application dismissed; decision affirmed

Orders

  • The decision of the University is affirmed on the grounds set out in these reasons for decision.